White House Responds to Blackout Controversy

Sunday, February 6, 2011
By Paul Martin

White House Communications Director rebuttal a tissue of lies, deception, and spin

Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Saturday, February 5, 2011

- Lies about Texas not being affected by draconian EPA rules on greenhouse gases.

- Deception about clean burning coal-fired plants producing “carbon pollution”.

- Spin in denying EPA and Obama administration have publicly stated and openly embarked on mission to destroy coal industry by blocking construction of new power plants.

The White House has publicly responded to the controversy surrounding the Obama administration’s agenda to bankrupt the coal industry and its connection to this week’s blackouts across the country, by attempting to deny the link in a rebuttal that amounts to nothing more than a tissue of lies, deception and spin.

In a blog that appears on the front page of WhiteHouse.gov, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer begins by claiming that the story came from a “questionable” source and is “unquestionably false,” without even naming the source. Frightened that Americans might actually read the source and make their own minds up based on the facts, Pfeiffer fails to provide a link to our original article that was subsequently picked up by the Drudge Report, Fox News and numerous other media outlets.

Pfeiffer then oversimplifies the debate by building a straw man argument based around the premise that “the Obama Administration is somehow responsible for the rolling blackouts in Texas,” before blaming the outages on cold weather.

By framing the argument to make out as if we claimed Obama flipped a switch and the lights went out is completely deceptive. Of course the cold weather has shown that the country is vulnerable to blackouts, but that vulnerability is a direct result of the Obama administration’s stated goal to bankrupt the coal industry and its proven track record, through the enforcement of EPA regulations, of blocking power plants from being built that would be able to handle the extra demand.

Pfeiffer then claims that the blackouts were a result of power plants experiencing “mechanical failures,” completely ignoring the fact that the blackouts were planned and were made necessary because of a lack of supply to meet increased demand. That’s why Texas had to rely on Mexico to meet its power shortfall, an offer that was subsequently suspended.

Pfeiffer then attempts to counter the manifestly provable fact that desperately needed new coal-fired plants are being mothballed under the weight of draconian EPA regulations on CO2 emissions by claiming that Texas isn’t subject to such restrictions. Firstly, Texas supplies power to surrounding states that have been impacted by the new EPA regulations, leaving less energy to meet the demand of those living in the lone star state.

Secondly, despite Texas’ best efforts to fight the new Clean Air Act standards, the EPA has aggressively enforced existing regulations, a process that has both delayed and prevented new plants in Texas from being built, such as the Las Brisas Energy Center, which has been the subject of a near three year battle between the EPA and state authorities.

Indeed, a federal court ruling last month gave the EPA permission to proceed with greenhouse gas regulation in Texas, temporarily superseding Texas’ non-compliance with the new regulations which came into force on January 2. The White House’s claim that EPA regulations are not currently affecting Texas is a complete fabrication.

The wider argument that the EPA is simply trying to implement reasonable measures to prevent “carbon pollution” is also a complete misnomer. Modern day clean burning coal-fired plants go to great lengths to remove all hazardous chemicals before any emissions leave the plant, through the use of sophisticated scrubbers and other techniques, to the point where the only emissions are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Watch the video below for a demonstration of these techniques.

The Rest…HERE

Leave a Reply